Vinnie

Living to 60 may have been 16%, 12% at 65, 8% at 70, 4% at 75, 1.6% at 80, 0,.04 at 85 (the reputed age of Polycarp).

That some of Jesus's original followers made it to 70, if they were of a large number (e.g. 100), is very probable and it is likely a few (2) have made it to 80 years of age. So if someone were 20-30 in 30C.E. he could live 50-60 more years going to 80-90 C.E.

Granted a population pool of 100 initial followers this is more liekly than not. The real question is how many apostles and followers id Jesus actually have? If it was just twelve then it is only likely that one of them made it to 70.

These numbers were from Coale-Demeny Model Life Table...of course exactly which model life table is used is a matter of debate and this one was suggested for ancient Rome by some as it may have been comparable to the 19th century UK...

The point is that using model tables makes it probable a few disciples lived to beyond 70 C.E. if a large enough starting pool is permitted.

Vinnie

andrewcriddle

The treatise on famous Ancient Octogenarians attrbuted to lucian may possibly be of interest.

Andrew Criddle

bacht

You're forgetting an important factor: the war with Rome in the 60s. If Jesus' followers were in Judea or Galilee at this time there's a chance some were killed or dislocated.

If you increase the hypothetical number of followers then there's the problem of explaining why there is no written record of their later preaching or miraculous activities (assuming this was primitive Christian behaviour as per Acts).

Vinnie

I agree. The numbers also have to include differences between those who worked with their hands and those who didn't. I think, statistically, when all is said and done, a small amount of the original followers made it past 70 years of age and it possible one or two made it to 80 or 90. This again, assumes a population pool no less than 100 to start.

spamandham

I seriously doubt these numbers apply to 1st century Jews.. They were decimated in the Jewish wars. But nonetheless, we'll go with the 4% number.

I don't think there's any reason to believe they were a large number. Even modern cult leaders rarely attract more than a dozen or so followers, and if there is any truth whatsoever in the gospels, then Jesus ministry did not last long enough to gather a lot of followers, and he only had 12 regular male followers. (I don't buy this either, but if we discount the veracity of the gospels, then there is no longer any good reason to accept that Jesus even lived in the 1st century).

So, let's use the 4% number, and combine it with a realistic estimate of the number of regular followers. The probability that one of those ~dozen followers made it to 75 is about 40%. (1 - (1-0.04)^12) . Not too shabby, by itself, but the probability that Polycarp lived to 85 *and* one of the 12 disciples lived to age 75 is 0.04*0.4 = 0.016...less than a 2% probability.

And we haven'[t even factored in the probability that Polycarp would have met a disciple. Surely that can't be more than 1 in 1000, so the aggregate probability that:

- one of the followers of Jesus (given that the gospels are trustworthy at least in regard to when Jesus lived, the timespan of his ministry, and the number of regular followers) live to 75

- and Polycarp lived to 85

- and Polycarp met one of the followers

...is now 0.000016.

Now let's compare that to the probability that this is simply made up bullshit, which I'll WAG at 0.85.

Must we waste our time considering wildly implausible scenarios, when there is an alternative highly plausible scenario?

Vinnie

Your assumption of 12 followers is most likely incorrect. Other considerations impact probability. Polycarp may have been born in to a Christian home ca. 70 C.E. which could already make him networked with Christians. Thus the likelihood of meeting Christians increases. Also must be taken into account is where he was born and where the surviving Christians were, if they traveled, etc. etc. etc.

Your abuse of statistics would certainly rule out much of known history because it is far too generic. For example the connection of any two random people in antiquity is like hitting the lotto. I concur but each person made lots of connections and for you to argue for the stats of two people you know extremely little about is an abuse of data. That is what you did for Polycarp and that does not work because we know people in antiquity made many connections throughout their lives. There is nothing supernatural about this and the value of positive historical testimony has to be factored in as well along with about a thousand other things we do not know.

I used the stats, with disclaimers, because the constant charge that all Jesus's followers, if he existed, were probably dead by 70 C.E. is unfounded. Not only is it unfounded, but the exact opposite is likely to be true on statistical grounds. Math doesn't lie, it can only be misused.

I am not arguing that Polycarp DID meet John the apostle, on the contrary, only against the pretentious and mathematically unsound claim that it is impossible. You cannot treat it as the probability of having two random 80 year old figures meet. That is an abuse of statistics. I only looked at the possibility of survivors out of a starting pool of 100 people, which I said, is open to debate. Though it may be more than a hundred not necessarily less. As you noted, the war has to be taken into account, Christian persecution, any major disease outbreaks known through primary literature, fires, the stats applied to exclusively a poorer class of people as seems likely, etc. etc.

spamandham

Well, I agree. I'm being generous here. However, the only documentation we have in regards to the regular male followers of Jesus, indicates the number as 12. If you reject that, then on what basis do you assume that Jesus even lived circa 30CE?

Huh? I suppose he might have been born in a Buddhist home as well, but is there any reason to think that the case? The amount we know about Polycarp could almost fill an entire sentence.

The only surviving work we have which is *attributed* to Polycarp, is his letter to the Philippians. In it, he never mentions John. The idea that he met John at some point in his life, is obvious bullshit as far as I'm concerned, and should be considered dubious as best by those less cynical.

Right, and so we should tend to reject such claims when they are of poor quality and serve an obvious propaganda agenda. The early church *HAD* to show a lineage all the way back to Jesus, or it's authority would not be accepted.

I put the a priori probability at 1 in 1000. I don't think that's terribly out of line considering the population at the time. But you're welcome to substitute whatever number you think is reasonable.

Even ignoring that, the odds are so low simply that John would live to 75 (4% being extremely generous), that we should seriously consider that this is simply bullshit. Now combine that with the requirement that Polycarp lived to 85, and we are getting close to ridiculous even without considering the a priori odds of a 15 year old meeting a 75 year old in the region of Judea in 70 CE.

It doesn't have to be supernatural to be highly questionable. Is it possible that Polycarp lived to 85, met John in his youth because John had lived to 75, and everything that is not demonstrably impossible in the Gospel accounts and church legend...er uhm I mean history are exactly as recorded ? Of course it's possible, but why shoudl we take such a scenario seriously when there is a much more plausible explanation?

Why is it so hard to recognize bullshit when we see it?

There is a 60% probability they were all dead by 70CE by my calculation. You are welcome to present your own calculation and justify your assumptions as I did.

aa5874

No amount of probability can correctly or even remotely show that John, Polycarp or any person of antiquity, if they lived, died at any age whatsoever.

Life expectancy rate is just a number and does not tell if any person can live beyond the rate.

avi

Agree, 100%.
I am stuck.
I found this reference:
Foxe's Book of Martyrs, written in the 16th century. Surely there must be some evidence more convincing than this, attesting to the age of the Apostle John? How do we know the age of Polycarp?
But, suppose for sake of argument, that we have some reliable source for the dates of both men. Where's the evidence that they met? How would they have met? What, an advertisement in the local newspaper???

Imagine that John were famous (strange, because if so, one would have imagined an order for his imprisonment/execution during Nero's persecution).

Why would a famous, Aramaic speaking, Jewish missionary from Palestine devote even ten minutes of his time talking about anything with a fifteen year old Greek speaking boy from Turkey?

Why would a fifteen year old kid waste his time arguing or even listening to a 75 year old guy with bad breath?
The whole episode is bizarre.

Vinnie

You can't accurately calculate it because the life table was from 19th century UK and while some found it useful as it appears similar to ancient Rome there are severe difficulties in applying a life model from one time and area to another. It is conjecture. But I was pointing out the obvious error of using a life expectancy of 35 to argue against the John//Polycarp connection because it clearly misunderstands life tables and what life expectancy means and how it changes for each person every time the second hand moves on the clock. Go to the CDC and type in life tables. Better yet, here is the link:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/life_tables.htm

Especially this one:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetab...e1890-1910.pdf

Which if compared to a later one shows how the high infant mortality rate of this one skews the life expectancy. For something else I am working on I did a direct comparison of 1901, 1966 and 2004 data and then took a look at the foreign data for India from 1901-1910. 50% of the population never made it to 10. Frightening!

See Walter Scheidel, Roman Age Structure: Evidence and Models, The Jornal of Roman Studies, Vol. 91 (2001), pp. 1-26, for difficulties in applying prima facie comparable life tables to Ancient Rome.

I also never said Polycarp met John nor am I convinced he did. That does not concern me. I am merely pointing out that it is not impossible and even probable that the time of Polycarp's youth could have overlapped with the dusk of an aging apostle's life. That is it. If you can present a cogent argument against this, be my guest.

FYI, a host of chronological indicators puts Jesus at ca. 30 C.E. If I recall correctly, Pilate was governor from from 27 to 36ish.

Vinnie